State of Emergency and Lack of Transparency are Detrimental to the Economy

21 October 2005 - In recent weeks, the government has announced or embarked on three policy thrusts to curtail basic freedoms, reduce transparency and accountability in governance, and contemplate the management takeover of privately-owned public utilities and businesses affected with the public interest. Individually, each of these policy thrusts are issues of concern from the standpoint of public governance in a democratic context. Collectively, they illustrate a pattern of repression which has detrimental effects on basic freedoms and eventually on an open economy.

First, Executive Order No. 464 prohibiting public officials from appearing in Congressional inquiries without the express consent of the President prevents Congress from exercising its Constitutionally-mandated oversight function and reduces transparency and accountability of officials in public service who have been entrusted to implement programs using public funds or carrying out acts in the public interest. The policy was triggered off by the disclosure by media of a U.S. lobbying contract signed by the National Security Advisor. There is no urgent reason why the National Security Advisor should be prohibited from answering questions as to the nature of the contract and its source of payment since the contract is a matter of public record in the United States . The implication of EO 464 is that all public acts by the Executive can now be hidden from public scrutiny by the refusal of the Office of the President to allow its officials to testify at inquiries. There will be even less transparency in government.

Second, the "calibrated preemptive response" and the hosing down of people assembled in the streets for peaceful purposes is an infringement on the right to assemble and the right to free speech, both of which rights are guaranteed by our Constitution. While some rallies may indeed be an inconvenience for the public, we must nonetheless respect this right to assemble and the right to free speech. The rallies per se are not the cause of instability as the government purports. The rallies are an expression of frustration at the government's inability to make significant inroads on poverty and corruption. These basic freedoms our people will fight for - as proven during Martial Law, regardless of how repressive the regime may be.

Finally, the "state of emergency" which the Administration appears to contemplate pursuing is counter-productive to its own objective of raising investor confidence and investments in the country. Why would investors enter key sectors such as the utility and transportation sectors, only to find their businesses subject to government takeover under state of emergency conditions which are not clearly defined ?

his trend to curtail freedoms, reduce transparency, and take over private enterprise will have detrimental effects on the nation.